Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 10 March 1894
• Citation: 25 S.W. 629
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

25 S.W. 629

WILLIAMS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 10, 1894.

Appeal from district court, Hunt county; E. W. Terhune, Judge.

James Williams was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

M. M. Brooks, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SIMKINS, J.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment for life.

1. Appellant contends that the court erred in refusing to charge that Mrs. Lona Humphreys was an accomplice to the murder of her husband. The evidence shows that no one was present at the murder of her husband but appellant and Mrs. Humphreys; that after the homicide Mrs. Humphreys went one-half mile, to her brother's house, and told him that two strange men had come into the house, and killed him with the axe. Mrs. Humphreys said she made this statement because she was afraid of appellant, and believed that he was close by, to hear what she said; that he told her what to say, and she feared to make any other statement until she could get to the officers of the law. If the criminal connection with the unlawful act is an admitted fact, the court may charge that the party so connected is an accomplice, and should be corroborated. If, however, there is any question about it, then it should be left to the jury to say whether the witness is an accomplice. In Zollicoffer's Case, 16 Tex. App. 317, where it was contended that the court should have directly charged the jury that the witness Green was an accomplice, — the evidence being so conclusive of that fact, — the court says: "Whilst it would not, under some facts, be improper for the court, in its charge, to assume, and instruct the jury, that the witness is an accomplice, still we do not think it is error to submit the question to the jury." White's Case, 30 Tex. App. 657, 18 S. W. 462; Freeman's Case, 11 Tex. App. 92; Elizando's Case, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 237, 20 S. W. 560. The charge fully instructed the jury on this question, and the court did not err in refusing the requested charges.

2. Appellant further contends that the court below erred in not granting a new trial upon the ground that the jury read the daily newspapers, which contained incorrect accounts of the testimony adduced on the trial. This ground of the motion was sustained by the affidavit of John Baker, one of the jurors, who states that he saw two of the jurors reading the page of the Daily Greenville Herald containing a synopsis of the evidence adduced on the trial. This was after the evidence had gone to the jury, and before they had rendered a verdict. The evidence, as reported in the newspaper, is copied in the transcript; and, after a careful comparison with the agreed testimony, we are unable to appreciate the objection that the newspaper report of the evidence was incomplete or inaccurate, nor has counsel, in his brief, pointed out any inaccuracy. So far as we are able to gather from the transcript, there is nothing in the report, nor in the paper itself, which in the slightest degree indicated the drift of public opinion as to appellant's guilt or innocence, nor is any prejudice or bias for or against appellant shown in any comment therein, and it contained no fact that was not introduced in the evidence on the trial. While it is true that where a newspaper contains prejudicial reports of the trial, or comments on the case, or the persons or character of those connected therewith, (Walker's Case, 37 Tex. 389,) or where it contains matter calculated to influence the verdict, (People v. Murray, [Cal.] 24 Pac. 666,) the verdict should be set aside, yet when there is nothing in the newspaper statement of the evidence calculated in any way to affect the rights of defendant, while it is not proper to admit it to the jury, still it should not vitiate the verdict, (U. S. v. Reid, 12 How. 366; State v. Cucuel, 31 N. J. Law, 263; 12 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 373.) It is not receiving additional evidence. Willson, Cr. Ev. § 2538; Willson's Cr. St. § 2545. Nor does the fact that one of the headlines of the report states that "Defendant was not...